FROM THE EXAMINER ... Launceston could soon see major changes at the country's biggest regional museum and art gallery, which calls the city home. [OH REALLY ... how and when was the institution's Community of Ownership & Interest consulted?]The planned overhaul of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery comes as the museum and council aim to ensure the future of the entity.[AGAIN ... how and when was the institution's Community of Ownership & Interest consulted? These people have invested 'trust' in the institution aqnd now it seems that this trust is trashed]
QVMAG includes the museum at Inveresk, and art gallery at Royal Park. It offers programs, tours, exhibits, archives along with its collection of art and artefacts. [YES, but is it serving the needs and aspirations of 21st C audiences and researchers plus the owners of IP held in its collections let alone sponsors and donors]
3,500 words more below
City of Launceston chief executive officer Michael Stretton, [AKA GM] along with QVMAG general manager Shane Fitzgerald want to see the museum receive the funding that matches its output to not only Launceston but to Tasmania, Australia and the world.[All well and good BUT their aspirations are essentially irrelevant given that their CURRENT role is to MANAGE the institution not to determine policy and determine strategic direction – advise on it possibly but NOT determine policy and strategy, that is the role of governance ... THE COUNCILLORS who it seems have abdicated the trusteeship invested in them]
A key challenge for QVMAG was the ongoing cost to the City of Launceston council, who were responsible for 80 per cent of the costs. [NO, the QVMAG as an institution, is required to deliver on KPI determined by its governors/trustees AND Council's role is to ensure trustworthy 'governance' within the budget it makes available by taxing the city's constituency and winning supplementary funding from funding agencies, sponsors and donors when and where possible and when appropriate ... FOR EXAMPLE The First Tasmanians: our story exhibit was funded by a 'community fund'.]
One of the stark differences for QVMAG was while similar institute, Tasmania Museum and Art Gallery, received more than $13 million years from the state government, QVMAG received just $1.5 million. Leaving the remaining cost of $6.1 million with City of Launceston ratepayers. [NO! this is an absolute distortion of the reality. The TMAG is a standalone State Govt 'owned' Institution with its 'governance' entrusted to a Board of Trustees who appoint managers in order to deliver a program within a recurrent budget. By comparison the QVMAG is currently a Council owned institution managed as a Cost Centre, funded by the city's ratepayers AND with supplementary funding provided by the State Govt essentially to facilitate research. In addition, the QVMAG has received project funding from various sources. The comparison drawn here is both irrelevant and misleading]
Another issue was that there were simply not enough visitors to the museum to balance out the investment by council, and innovation and development was required to bring in the visitors to match the ratepayers input. [NO, the QVMAG as an institution, is not delivering the class of programming that is attracting 21st C audience needs on site and otherwise. In part this is due to a paucity of both governance and management over a prolonged period. Its programming is essentially non-participatory while internationally like institutions run participatory programs and increasingly digitally facilitated engagement with collections]
City of Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said while the plan was ambitious, it was innovative and would increase the output QVMAG had for Tasmania. [NO, the plan is a folly, audacious, misdirected and based on a fiction and is far from being evidence based. On the evidence, it appears as if the proposal is largely speculative and based on questionable propositions]
"Council is of the firm belief that this reimaging of QVMAG would increase cultural visitation to the region by around 110,000 people a year, with an additional contribution to the local economy of more than $140 million," he said. [ON what evidence is this 'belief' based on? Where can the evidence be accessed and who has provided it and indeed who in possession of what credentials, experience and what achievements? If these questions are answerable why aren't they evident?]
The future of QVMAG relied on making significant changes to the museum, governance and costings.[True, and that is in fact a fundamental that is required given the paucity of governance and by extension the managerial disconnections that flow from that in a 21st C context all the way into programming, policy development and evidence based strategic reviews]
Cr van Zetten highlighted the discrepancy between TMAG in Hobart and QVMAG.[NO, there is no discrepancy whatsoever. Comparing the two institutions is something like comparing a grape with a watermelon. Both are fruits certainly but incomparable. The TMAG is a State Govt. institution that operates within a budget – recurrent & other – towards fulfilling Govt. determined 'purposefulness' and priorities. While the QVMAG is a City of Launceston institution . This is no comparison in reality and thus no discrepancy albeit that both a quite similar institutions]
"The state has invested $49.3 million into TMAG over the past five years - compare this with just $7.2 million for QVMAG over that same period." [NO, yet again there is no discrepancy whatsoever given that the TMAG is a State Govt institution and the QVMAG is a Local Govt institution in receipt of discretionary funding in competition with ALL other cultural institutions state-wide]
Hobart City council, while benefiting from TMAG, do not pay for the asset like Launceston. [NO, Hobart funds cultural activity by other means and from time to time Hobart Council in fact funds TMAG projects in competition with other cultural providers]
Cr van Zetten also noted the performance of QVMAG was lacking. [YES, it certainly is not delivering value for the ratepayers relative to current funding and the 'levies' embedded in the city's rate demands]
"At a local level, we know that the QVMAG was [IS] underperforming in relative terms compared with other similar institutions across Tasmania such as TMAG and MONA," he said.[TRUE, but its underperformance is NOT comparable with the TMAG & MONA. Its underperformance is however comparable with regional cultural institutions delivering cost effective programming nationally and internationally within budgets provided in competition with other cultural activities across the cultural spectrum]
"From the council's perspective, it's clear that the current programmatic offering needs to be of a higher quality, with more diverse and inclusive experiences to encourage and maintain its appeal to visitors and locals alike." [TRUE, but its underperformance is almost entirely attributable to its paucity of 'governance' oversighted by Mayor van Zetten as a default Trustee since 2005. Bigger does not always mean better. What matters is an institution's purposeful strategic governance and in regard to the QVMAG and its paucity of governance. Here the Mayor seems to be measuring success relative to 19th/20th C social cum cultural paradigms]
QVMAG Future Plan
Overall, the report found the current funding arrangement was not sustainable and was not a model which would enable the future success of QVMAG. [TRUE, but that has been the case, and identified as so, since Y2000 ... Arguably before that too! This is NOT NEWS! The message here again is to do with the paucity of governance largely due to Councillors' lack of expertise in the idiosyncratic paradigm of cultural institution's trusteeship and governance.]
This funding model placed the burden for majority funding of a state-level asset [an unfounded self-serving asserted truth] on the ratepayers of just one municipal area despite the fact that QVMAG services the region and the state more broadly. [NONSENSE, currently the QVMAG is a regional institution, owned be Local Govt. The "burden" here is all to do with managerial aspirations with increased executive salaries and benefits in mind. The institution has quite simply operated beyond its means and has been allowed to do so almost entirely due to a lack of expertise in the idiosyncratic paradigm of cultural institution's trusteeship and governance..]
QVMAG was underfunded compared to similar-sized entities across Australia because of the budget constraints of the council, which caused the museum and gallery to fail in attracting sufficient visitation. [NONSENSE, where is the evidence to sustain this assertion? If such claims are to be made they MUST be backed by evidence. Where are the examples? In any event the comparisons indicated are NOT indicative of the funding paradigm in cultural institutions nation wide in Australia. Moreover they are not named and the assertion is vacuous.]
The plan itself, which would be tabled at the next council meeting, looked at several directions of change, all with alternative options. [All undertaken in camera well away from public scrutiny let alone any meaningful consultation with, or meaningful engagement with, Council's constituency OR the QVMAG's constituency, the institution's Community of Ownership & Interest]
The first direction looked at governance. A significant change would be adopting a skills-based board of governance. [This NEED was identified at a two day Search Conference back in 2002 and has not only NOT been acted upon it has been serially and somewhat surreally been resisted and notably by Mayor van Zetten demonstrating a total lack of expertise in the idiosyncratic paradigm of cultural institution's trusteeship and governance.]
QVMAG was unique in that it had a local council governance board [ YES, and one with a lack of expertise in the idiosyncratic paradigm of cultural institution's trusteeship and governance.]. The steps towards a skills-based board would take between 18 months to two years. [NONSENSE, such an outcome has been achieved elsewhere much more quickly under the auspices of a 'commissioner/administrator' tasked carry out a clear and precise brief towards a 'purposeful outcome' consistent with developing the expertise in the idiosyncratic paradigm of cultural institution's trusteeship and governance. ]
Mr Fitzgerald said this was an element they could [?] work on that did not rely on further funding from the government. [As the institution's 'manager' Mr Fitzgerald has a management role, NOT a strategic role in reconstituting the institution he is tasked to manage and to deliver programming within. Indeed, is Mr. Fitzgerald actually advocating for the the status quo here?]
For operations costs, options in the plan include increasing municipality rates, sharing costs to other municipalities, or to cease operations. None of those options were recommended. [All should still be live options along with others apparently not considered or contemplated. Given that 'the process' indicated here was carried out in camera it is not possible to comment on the deliberations that might have or might not have taken place. The assertion is simply self-serving and vacuous and it does Mayor van Zetten no credit at all to be advancing such spurious assertions.]
What was recommended and preferable was an increased state contribution. The report also stated it wanted to see a QVMAG Futures Fund. [THIS IS A NONSENSE, such an outcome on the evidence lacks credibility and it is not evidence based. Moreover, it is premised on an assumption that the funding exists in State Govt. OR corporate coffers.]
Priority Projects
Another aim was to make the Albert Park Art Gallery [where is this place?] more accessible and appealing to visitors with a $75 million upgrade. [AGAIN TOTAL NONSENSE, such an expenditure under the current circumstances is unjustifiable given the Climate Crisis, the ongoing pandemic etc. It is especially so given that the QVMAG, on the evidence, is disinclined to either initiate or participate in any level of research that might be relevant to current needs and aspirations. It might well do but does not and has not. Moreover, such infrastructure pus in place a circumstance whereby there will be growing maintenance requirements to burden budgets looking ahead albeit well beyond the horizons of the CURRENT Councillors' or management's incumbency.]
This priority project would include making the gallery more accessible, and a carpark. [AGAIN TOTAL NONSENSE, unworthy of the assumed intellect that might have written this baseless propaganda. Moreover Deputy Mayor Gibson waxed lyrical saying words to the effect that 'the provision of parking' was not part of the vision for Launceston – more hollow rhetoric upon hollow rhetoric.]
QVMAG would also look to become more culturally diverse, including the priority project for an Aboriginal Science and Education centre which would partner with the Aboriginal community. [AGAIN TOTAL NONSENSE, ... patronising decorative propaganda and upon who's initiative in any event. Of course such a facility would be welcomed but Council has under utilised property that could be repurposed. To argue against this is tantamount to denigrating 'motherhood' – too cynical by far.]
The cost of this would be under the Art Gallery redevelopment.
Another priority project was a Collection Discovery Centre, with a costing of $85 million. This would allow people to explore offsite collections that go unseen. [AGAIN TOTAL NONSENSE, and patronising decorative propaganda and at $85Mil, a total distortion and IF achieved a misuse of scarce resources with no prospect of a fiscal or social return/dividend ... Rather an ongoing fiscal liability in regard to infrastructure maintenance that will incrementally impact upon rate demands. Here such maintenance requirements would be a burden to budgets looking ahead albeit well beyond the horizons of the CURRENT Councillors' or management's incumbency – the level of perversity here is palpable.]
QVMAG only had a small amount of their collection on display. [Not an unusual situation and something that needs to be considered is the collections are working collection in the context of research. INDEED if the search was undertaken, in Nth America at least one would be found where NONE of its collection was available for 'public viewing' except by appointment with a substantial amount being 'on tour' in the USA and internationally via multiple exhibits touring.]
The goal for QVMAG would be to make the asset self-sufficient, which would mean funding to allow the museum and art gallery to expand their collections and set themselves up for the future. [VACUOS NONSENSE, Why? IF there was any substance to this assertion there would/should be a purposeful STRATEGIC PLAN replete with OBJECTIVES, RATIONALES & ARTICULATED STRATEGIES ... Public Administration 101. This is absent!]
A final major project in the draft Futures Plan was a $250 million redevelopment of the Inveresk Precinct [is this not a FLOOD PLAIN CUM TIDAL FLAT... is Launceston's identified FLOOD RISK being ignore yet again] which would see a centrally located cultural/ creative/education precinct within the heart of Launceston. [This is total folly in a 21st C context. Firstly the expenditure is unjustifiable in competition with other priorities ... housing, health, environment, etc. Secondly, the additional infrastructure will be an ongoing fiscal burden for which funding for is apparently NOT factored in to the proposal IF the funding is even available. .... Again IF achieved, the ongoing fiscal burden will be non trivial albeit well beyond the horizons of the CURRENT Councillors' or management's incumbency.]
Mr Fitzgerald said over a 10-year period, a self sufficient model for QVMAG was possible, despite this model not having been used before in Australia. [AGAIN TOTAL NONSENSE, and IF Mr Fitzgerald is seriously proposing this, where is his DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN replete with a TIMELINE with key achievement points and KPI needed at specific times in order that the veracity of his evidence based 'assertion from management' can be tested by the INVESTORS ... the city's rate and tax payers.]
Mr Fitzgerald said this method was used in North America and would allow the next generation to see the museum and art gallery continue without needing council or government handouts. [AGAIN TOTAL NONSENSE, and IF Mr Fitzgerald can identify WHERE in Nth America, in WHAT CONTEXT in Nth America or elsewhere he needs to 'stump up' with his exemplars. Otherwise, this is TRUTH BY ASSERTION that does not stand any credibility test and thus must be dismissed out of hand. A similar claim was asserted by one of his predecessors and the very first example of 'magic programming' GAME ON 2 attracted audiences yes but was a fiscal disaster generating a LOSS equivalent to many times his salary. Mr. Fitzgerald might profitably search the QVMAG's archives!]
Arts Minister Elise Archer said she acknowledged that QVMAG was a major destination for art, history and science in Northern Tasmania, and an important part of cultural life for the Launceston community and for the state more broadly. [TRUE but underperforming relative to tax and ratepayer investment and arguably not performing relative to KPI protocols she put in place some time ago.]
"Our government provides consistent and sustained financial support to the City of Launceston towards the operations of QVMAG (owned by that council), administered on an annual basis through a perpetual deed with the state government," she said. [TRUE and again underperforming relative to tax and ratepayer investment relative to competitive funding that calls upon the the public purse.]
"In the 2021-22 financial year, funds of over $1.5 million have been provided for the operations of the museum, with commensurate funding committed in the 2022-23 state budget. [TRUE and again underperforming relative to tax and ratepayer investment and thus should/could be reviewed requiring stricter KPI criteria. It is entirely possible that this funding could be better directed delivering tangible outcomes if applied elsewhere in Tasmania – and that might well be argued for in time.]
"We are aware of the plans for redevelopment of the Royal Park Art Gallery Development, and we look forward to a concept design being finalised and then presented to Government, noting there has been no official request for funding at this stage. [YES of course and if the 'redevelopment plans' lacks a purposeful STRATEGIC PLAN. This proposal should not get anything more than a dismissive glance]
HOWEVER it is more than possible that the 'main game' here that is actually in play is that this proposal is 'DESIGNED to fail' as it clearly should as it stands. In this context there may well be two clear possibilities – perhaps others too – that are under active consideration.
One being the maintenance of the status quo. It is quite clear that the incumbency is 'relaxed and comfortable' with the status quo given that it has now become the 'in-house wisdom' that the 'elected representative' lack the competence to be 'trustee cum governors' of any class of cultural institution. Against this background, Councillors can 'set and forget' while management can go on building its fiefdom with whatever funding that can be mustered from whatever sources are available. Also, 'accountability' becomes a non-issue as it has been, and is being facilitated by the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act 1993 and especially so by SECTION 62/2 of the Act.
The evident mindset is that 'if its not broken do not fix it' is clear with various Councillors displaying their disinterest and/or ineptitude whenever called upon to comment. This proposal apparently aims only to quell/silence the 'noisy minority' and put any serious contestation well away from the imperative of maintaining the status quo. Here it is worth reminding the incumbency that Ronald Regan had something very pertinent to say about 'the status quo'. Paraphrased, he said that 'it is Latin for the mess we are in'.
However, there is also an underlying aspiration on the part of the incumbency to colonise adjoining Councils' 'territory and assets' which should not be ignored. This was revealed in technicolor very recently in open Council – EXAMINER LINK
Another option being, and it can only be speculation, but the circumstantial evidence is present and it is well known. It is often reported anecdotally that the GM/CEO aims to rid the CoL of what he and his predecessor called NON CORE operations – AKA expensive Cost Centres. Doing so would/could mask the city's serial budget 'overruns' in other areas. At this point it is worth noting that with every $1Mil budget overrun it approximately equals 2.5 GMsalaries and in recent years there have been many $Millions of budget overruns reported – and without consequence.
The QVMAG is understood as, and managed as, a Cost Centre and like all Cost Centres it is vulnerable to 'economic rationalisation' of the kind that rarely turn out to be either rational or economically effective. In fact this is Public Administration 101!
Nonetheless, in relation to circumstantial evidence we must be alert to its limitations and all possible revelations. To quote David Cannadine ... "David Irving has consistently applied an evidential double standard, demanding absolute documentary proof to convict the Germans – as when he sought to show that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust – while relying on circumstantial evidence to condemn the British – as in his account of the Allied bombing of Dresden.
In the event that the main game here – Machiavellian as it would be – is to surreptitiously shed the city of its obligations to the QVMAG's constituency – its Community of Ownership & Interest – it would be a calculated, a cowardly and a quite deliberate act of bastardy of the highest order.
Certainly the QVMAG brings with it a full set of obligations and that is something the city, and Launcestonians generally, have taken on for 130 years plus. These are obligations the GM/CEO, the Mayor and all Councillors need to be mindful of – along with the 'trust' that is invested in them.
Circumstantially, the Councillors have already abdicated as governors cum trustees and furthermore they have unconscionably devolved their 'governance role' to management – this is a totally warped situation. It turns out that this is tantamount to being a perverse dereliction of the 'trusteeship' invested in them as 'governors' in receipt of generous stipends for their 'representation'.
The apparent lack of competence layered upon obscenity on display here is something more than unacceptable and unprofessional corporate behaviour. It raises so, so many questions. "How many times can a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesn't see?" ... Bob Dylan
No comments:
Post a Comment